Leaving the issue of Hazelwood’s dubious sobriety out of it, the issue of command responsibility comes to the fore. It is my understanding that the officer on the bridge was not qualified to navigate her (as he demonstrated) either in fact nor was he certified to do so. Regardless, it was Hazelwood’s responsibility to at all times have the ship in the hands of capable seamen, a responsibility he clearly failed.
The notions of irresponsibility and negligence only begin to describe Hazelwood’s action. Exxon Valdez was an accident that should never have happened, and required widespread lassitude and lackadaisical behavior on the part of just about every member of the crew. It is the captain’s responsibility to instill an attitude of diligence and attentiveness in his crew and dismiss those who will not conform.
Keep in mind, please that the standard for a sea captain being considered “intoxicated” is far lower than that for automobile drivers. Most people would be over the limit after two beers.
Practically everything you wrote is wrong:
http://www.argee.net/Thrawn%20Rickle/Thrawn%20Rickle%2080.htm
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990314&slug=2949434